Parroting Solicitation Language Is Not a Winning Approach to Proposal Writing

The agency assessed deficiencies to the protester for lack of detail in its technical approach. The protester complained. GAO sided with the agency. The protester’s technical approach consisted of general bullet points that simply repeated solicitation language. 

Manutek, Inc., GAO B-422096, B-422096.2 

• Page Limitation – The agency assessed the protester’s technical approach deficiencies for lack of detail. The protester argued it included as much detail as possible within the solicitation’s 5-page limitation. GAO noted the protester was wrong about the 5-page limit. The solicitation initially had a 5-page limit, but the agency amended to raise the limit to 15 pages. 
• Lack of Detail – The protester argued the agency applied unstated criteria in requiring more detail than the evaluation specified. GAO rejected the argument. The solicitation required offerors to submit a detailed work plan that described their methodology. The protester had not met this standard. The protester’s technical approach contained some general tasks, did not address requirements, and did little more than paraphrase the solicitation. 

The protester is represented by Manohar Gaddam. William A. Shook of The Law Offices of William A. Shook represents the awardee. The agency is represented by Allan B.K. Urgent, Dulce Donovan, and Telly Renfroe of the Department of Justice. GAO attorneys Heather Self and Peter H. Tran participated in the decision. 

–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor 

[pdf-embedder url=”https://staging.pub-k.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/GAO-Manutek.pdf” title=”GAO – Manutek”]